322 messages in 78 discussions
Latest Mar-18 by Cstar1
Latest Mar-10 by Cstar1
137 messages in 47 discussions
Latest Mar-17 by Cstar1
Latest Mar-4 by Cstar1
48 messages in 18 discussions
Latest Mar-7 by Cstar1
10605 messages in 2514 discussions
1285 messages in 671 discussions
3314 messages in 976 discussions
775 messages in 531 discussions
747 messages in 551 discussions
1325 messages in 615 discussions
1035 messages in 354 discussions
516 messages in 431 discussions
485 messages in 266 discussions
346 messages in 29 discussions
172 messages in 20 discussions
Interesting and thought provoking counter argument with good source material:
I get that this guy disagrees with the premise that the reintroduction of wolves was not as far reaching as the video claims.
But I don't get his whole white racism vs. wilderness argument.
"Wilderness" is what he objected to, it is an oh so pure viewpoint that he has issues with. True wilderness implies and actually is NO interaction with anything not OF the wilderness, a thing that does not exist, ANYWHERE.
The main thing he points out is that ALL members of the environment contribute to the end result, the wolves are actually a minor part of the Yellowstone and similar forest and backcountry environments. Sans wolves, deer and elk can proliferate, browsing and killing aspens and willows in riverine environments resulting in sharp defiles for creeks and rivers. Wolves in and of themselves cannot and will not restore a riverbank to a meandering waterway though lush reeds, aspen and willow growth, the damage was done and has to take a VERY long times to self repair.